Roman Catholic fyftem, It belongs to them alone who believe it to do this, as they only are affected by the confequence. Nor is it fufficient to invalidate the charge brought against the Romish church on thefe points, to fhew that her decifions have not been always unanimous or uniform*, or her practice invariable with respect to them: it doth not therefore follow that they are none of hers; or that they have not been so received, countenan ced, or allowed therein, as to prove highly mischievous in fociety, which history puts beyond all doubt. Nor will it follow, that there is no danger of fuch principles producing the fame effects, and operating in a fimilar manner Still, among thofe who are actuated by her fpirit, and devoted to her faith and authority. Though as many and equally good authorities, and as full and direct proof, could be produced, to evince that the hath condemned and exploded these dangerous tenets, as that the hath ap To fhew how little regard is to be paid to fome of thofe decifions infifted upon as condemning thefe doctrines, we may take for an inftance the famous decifions of the French clergy in 1682, containing four propofitions against the power and infallibility of the Pope, at the inftance of the king, who was then almost at open war with his Holiness about the regale. "The four maxims," fays Voltaire, “ were at first supported with enthusiasm in the nation, after"wards with less vivacity. Towards the end of the reign of Lewis XIV. they "began to become problematical; and Cardinal Fleury made them be difavowed "at laft, in part, by an affembly of the clergy." Thefe decifions were no fooner made in France than condemned at Rome as the attempt of rebels. The Pope threatened the kingdom with a general interdict. He refused bulls to all the bishops and abbots nominated by the king: fo that, at the death of Pope Innocent XI. in 1689, there were no less than 29 diocefes unprovided of bishops. His two next fucceffors acted the fame part, till at last the king's bishops, feeing themselves without functions, weary of the fray, terminated ít by yielding up the cause. All of them wrote, by permiffion of the king, pacificatory letters to Innocent XII, which he was pleafed to accept, wherein, "proftrate at the feet "of his Holiness, they begged pardon for what had taken place, profeffed that "they were grievously afflicted on account of the proceedings of the affembly, declaring, that they accounted them null, and held as undecided what had "been therein decided, and sincerely wished that what was done had been undone. “Provoluti ad pedes fan&titatis vetra-infectum volumus.” Volt. Hift. du Siecle, etc. ch. xxxi. to. ii. p. 184, etc. Hift. du Droit publ. Eccl. Fr. to. ii. P. 314. proved proved or adopted them, (which yet, as to fome of them, at leaft, cannot be done), yet this could be no fufficient. exculpation, while the contrary evidence could not be fet afide. These would ftill remain part of her principles, as much, at least, as the oppofite, and a Roman Catholic would be equally bound to believe and follow both, which being impoffible in fact, he must remain at least in as great danger of believing and practising the one as the other. By muftering up fuch contrary evidence for exculpation, nothing is gained in favour of the Catholic cause, but a convincing proof that it is falfe and contradictory, and that thofe who efpouse it are capable of believing any thing. If the principles and practices in question are found to be Catholic in the Romish fenfe of the word, or in the fame fenfe in which other doctrines and ufages are commonly reckoned fo, this is fufficient. It is certainly no calumny to impute thofe doctrines to the church of Rome, or, in other words, to account them Catholic principles, which have been predominant therein through ages, which have been publicly avowed and taught, and practically prevalent, and which fall under the rules and marks which Roman Catholics themselves establish and admit, for knowing what doctrines are received and approved in their church. If this be calumny, it is a calumny which they themselves are the authors of.-Or, though we were to grant, that the above articles were never, strictly speaking, Catholic principles, nor have been fo univerfally received, or conftantly profeffed, as fome others; yet, if it is manifeft that they have been at least partially received, have been publicly tolerated, and more than tolerated,-have a pear affinity with their other received principles, and natively refult from them;-if, in a word, it be undeniable, that they have innumerable respectable authorities, faintly examples, and fanctified and celebrated precedents, is not this a fufficient reafon for nations to be on their guard against " gainft that fruitful mother of abominations, that indulgent nurfe of fuch herefies and crimes, until the latent poifon, which has ftill been fermenting in her conftitution, and hath corrupted her very vitals, be entirely purged out. All the formality and folemnity of public decision, the exprefs fanction of universal approbation, are not absolutely neceffary to give energy to thefe principles, and birth to the dangers with which they are pregnant. They were not requifite it seems, in times past, for such purposes, and why should they be more fo for the time to come. If these principles could formerly deluge all nations, within the. confines of the Romish pale, with evils, while, according to the hypothesis of our opponents, they were not univerfally received, or established principles, what fhould hinder them from doing fo again? What has been, may be. How can it fet men's minds at ease now, more than formerly, to tell us that fuch things have not been enjoined exprefly by general councils, nor approved by the univerfal church? Is not one Hildebrand, one Innocent, or Boniface, filling the papal chair, fufficient to fet the world on fire? May not one afpiring Anfelm, or Becket, one cruel Bonner, or principled Garnet, convulfe or destroy a kingdom? May not one bigotted fanatic, one tutored Clement, one furious Ravaillac, accomplish what all the bulls and armies of the Pope, and all the decrees of ecumenical councils could not effect? And it particularly deferves confideration, that, in France, where these pernicious doctrines of the Papacy have been more generally rejected and abhorred than in other Catholic countries, they have operated with more impetuous force, and have there produced the most mournful and unexampled tragedies. But are not Roman Catholics themfelves the best judges of their own creed? Why continue to charge their church with doctrines which her own members profefs they know nothing of? Why impute to them principles and confe quences " quences which they difavow?-Roman Catholics have properly no creed of their own, but that of mother church; and what that is, may be as well learnt, and as certainly known by others as by themfelves: nay, in fome respects, others must be more competent judges than they can be in their own caufe, in which they have fuch ftrong temptations to partiality. Situated as Papifts are in Britain and Ireland, it must be greatly for their credit and intereft to difavow fuch obnoxious tenets: but, before they can confiftently do this, they must hold them to be no received principles of their church. Many of them, it feems, fee meet to do fo. But muft their partial and interested testimony be alone fufficient to decide the queftion, which is about a matter of fact, as to which others may have equal access to the fources of knowledge and evidence. Before we can be obliged to reft upon their naked affertions in this matter, we would need to have full fecurity for two things; first, that none of her members can mistake her true principles, nor be ignorant of them; and then, that they cannot knowingly falfify, difguife, or mifreprefent them, when they are under peculiar temptations to do so.— But certainly the best and fureft way to obtain fatisfactory information on this head, is to appeal from the living to the dead, from interested Papifts to the more impartial; and to apply for the knowledge of the genuine principles of the church of Rome, to her own authentic monuments and vouchers, rather than to the private judgments, and bare affertions or negations of her members, however confident. By taking this courfe we cannot juftly be char ged with framing a. fyftem in her name, and impofing it upon her against her confent, we still make Catholics Vouchers of their own faith. Nor is this to palm upon any principles or confequences which they are pleafed to difavows or to force our modern Catholics to believe or profefs füch principles against their conviction, and whe* Mr. G. H,'s Letter, p. 13. Brookes, Erafmus, Dr. Robertson, etc. ther they will or not: this is true of her alone, who thus. impofes upon them her faith, and whose business alone it is, to fee that none of her fons depart from the smallest iota of it, or tranfgrefs one of the least of her grievous commandments, or make void any of her former decrees. We only hereby fhow what they are bound, by their profeffion, to believe, and what they muft believe if they be confiftent with themfelves, and real Catholics. But merely because they may be pleafed to declare that these are not the principles of the Romish church, this is no fure evidence that they are not: or though they themselves should not believe them, but infringe their own rule of faith, it doth not follow, that other Catholics do fo likewife. "But," fay others, "though it cannot be well denied "that fuch impious tenets have actually been adopted in "former times, and too often put in practice in the dark er ages, yet the cafe is now entirely altered. She hath "long fince exchanged them for more liberal fentiments; σε and for fome centuries paft they have been universally "exploded."-Is Rome then reformed? Has the accused. herfelf of impious errors, and deadly crimes, by voluntarily renouncing them? Then has the fairly yielded the caufe to heretics, and confeffed herself to be, as Cardinal Perron expreffes it, a fynagogue of Satan, and the spouse of the devil. Then may fhe ceafe to be the Lady of kingdoms. Then is her boasted perpetuity of faith destroyed; the phantom of infallibility is for ever vanished, and the magic rod broken wherewith fhe kept her flaves in awe. Henceforth fhe cannot have the confidence to exact implicit faith in her fallible decifions, nor pretend a right to be believed in any thing whatever, upon her fole authority; but every one must be left to believe for himself, and to be fully perfuaded in his own mind. By a confeffion of the smallest error, or change, infallibility is mortally wounded, and eternally destroyed; and one error is as inconfiftent with |